Lindsay Lohan Sues E*Trade For $100 Million; Says Baby Was Based On Her

from the well,-who's-a-baby-now dept

If you thought the guy suing because he thought Hurt Locker was based on his life story (but also made him look bad) was going too far, here's an even more ridiculous lawsuit. Dave Barnes was the first of a few of you to alert us to the news that actress Lindsay Lohan is suing E*Trade for $100 million, claiming that one of the babies used in its famous "talking babies" commercials was based on her. The baby -- which was named Lindsay -- is shown as being a "boyfriend-stealing, milkaholic" baby. And, for that, Lindsay say she deserves $100 million in "pain and suffering." I'm trying to decide which makes someone seem more like a baby: a commercial with a silly "milkaholic" baby, or a humorless multi-millionaire starlet suing a financial firm for $100 million over a silly commercial that has talking babies, because she can't take a joke.

Filed Under: babies, lawsuits, lindsay lohan
Companies: etrade

Intellectual Ventures Lending Its Patents To Members To Sue Others

from the win-win? dept

We've certainly written plenty about Intellectual Ventures, the giant, incredibly secretive, patent hoarding operation that has convinced a bunch of companies to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in a sort of pyramid scheme protection racket, to avoid getting sued on any of the patents that it holds. But now it's taken things a step further. Last year, we saw how at least one IV patent had shown up in a patent lawsuit, and now Zusha Elinson is reporting that Intellectual Ventures has effectively loaned out one of its patents to member company Verizon, with which it can sue TiVo, in response to a lawsuit TiVo filed against it.

Yes, effectively, Intellectual Ventures is becoming an arms dealer in patent nuclear war.

Think about this for a second. TiVo sued Verizon over patents. Traditionally in patent lawsuits between two big tech companies, the sued party then finds some of its own patents that the other company is infringing on and then counter-sues. But, in this case, apparently Verizon couldn't find anything good, and IV dug through its own portfolio and transferred the rights over to Verizon so Verizon could pound back on TiVo. This must be what Verizon paid Intellectual Ventures $350 million for. The right to get handed patents that it has no intention of using or implementing, but over which it can sue others. I don't think this is what Thomas Jefferson envisioned when he set up the patent system.

Amusingly, Intellectual Ventures tries to position this all as a good thing:

Don Merino, vice president of licensing at IV, said it's an example of IV taking "a much more customer-centric approach."

"We want to figure out how to get out of the, 'I win, you lose' to a much more collaborative, 'We both win,'" said Merino.

Well, sure. Unless you're TiVo. Or the general public who would prefer that these hundreds of millions of dollars getting tossed around went towards actual innovation instead of lawsuits.

Filed Under: lawsuits, lending, patents
Companies: intellectual ventures, tivo, verizon

Instead Of Suing Each Other Over Who Can Claim 'Most Reliable' Why Not Invest In Making A More Reliable Network?

from the wasting-money dept

Ah, for the love of puffery. A few years ago, we were among those who noticed that pretty much every mobile operator in the US had commercials making some sort of claim about how they were the "best" network out there, whether it was "most reliable," "most powerful," or "fewest dropped calls." The whole thing is a joke and I doubt anyone takes those sorts of claims very seriously. But soon afterwards, the lawyers got involved, and lawsuits were filed over who could claim what about their networks in commercials. Even the Better Business Bureau felt the need to weigh in.

Now, it looks like a similar battle is playing out up north. Rob Hyndman points us to the news that there are a series of lawsuits in Canada over similar claims concerning broadband internet access, with one company being upset that another company has commercials claiming to have the "fastest and most reliable" broadband offering.

Here's an idea: rather than wasting money suing each other over these sorts of claims, why not invest some money into actually improving the network?

Filed Under: advertising, isp, lawsuits, networks, reliability

Domino's Turns A Loss In A Lawsuit It Wasn't Involved In Into A TV Commercial

from the wow dept

People have been discussing, lately, how Domino's new advertising campaign is certainly on the gutsy side. Basically, the company started running commercials that admitted pretty clearly what anyone who's ever eaten at Domino's has known for years: its pizzas were dreadful. The new commercials effectively admitted this in touting a brand new recipe that they insist is much, much better, and saying that customers hated the old pizza (in slightly different words). It seems the ad campaign continues to break new grounds, as well, as the latest ad actually uses a lawsuit between two competitors as the key point to bash Papa Johns -- even though the Papa Johns won that lawsuit. Found via Rebecca Tushnet, the ad itself mocks Papa Johns for "puffery" in its advertising slogan of "Better ingredients. Better pizza." Watch it below: The actual lawsuit had nothing at all to do with Domino's, though you wouldn't know that from the commercial. It actually involved Pizza Hut suing Papa Johns over the slogan, as Pizza Hut argued that Papa Johns was implying its ingredients and pizzas were worse than Papa Johns. While Pizza Hut won at the lower level, an appeals court reversed and the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, so Papa Johns could use the slogan again. Domino's, again, had no part in the lawsuit, but is apparently mocking Papa Johns in its commercials for claiming in court that such a slogan involves "puffery" and wasn't meant to indicate that it's pizzas were better than a specific competitor's.

You have to hand it to Domino's ad team, though, for taking a lawsuit that didn't even involve itself, and then creating a TV ad about it, which doesn't even mention how the competitor they're mocking won that lawsuit. That's bold.

Filed Under: advertising, lawsuits, pizza, puffery
Companies: dominos, papa johns, pizza hut

Veoh Shuts Down; What Happens To The Lawsuit?

from the that's-not-good dept

Veoh was one of a number of online video YouTube-wannabes that, despite being connected to Michael Eisner and raising money from Time Warner and Goldman Sachs, never got very much actual traction... and... got tangled up in a lawsuit with Universal Music pretty quickly over alleged copyright infringement, despite Veoh abiding by the DMCA. Every single step of the way, Veoh basically won big in the lawsuit. Time and time again, every trick that Universal Music tried -- including suing Veoh's investors directly, was rejected by the judge, and the final ruling late last year was that Veoh abided by the DMCA and was protected by its safe harbors from Universal Music's lawsuit. It was a complete victory.

The only problem? Veoh spent a lot of time, money and effort on this lawsuit, and no one was using Veoh.

I'd heard about a month ago that the company was flat broke, but that it had a good chance of raising more money to continue fighting the appeal from Universal Music... but it looks like that fell through. The company has laid off everyone and is shutting down. Those involved with the company are blaming Universal Music... and certainly it's tempting to blame UMG and this pointless lawsuit, which definitely sucked up a ton of resources. But, let's also face facts: no one was using Veoh. When was the last time you were sent a Veoh video? I get sent videos on YouTube, Hulu, Vimeo and even DailyMotion every so often. But I can't recall ever hearing about a Veoh video.

Still, with the company declaring bankruptcy, I'm not quite sure what this would mean for Universal's appeal in the lawsuit. While the company was a total flop, the district court ruling last year set a very important precedent in clearly stating that the DMCA's safe harbors did protect such sites (like YouTube) as long as they complied with the takedown process. Without a company to continue fighting what happens to the appeal? I'm not that familiar with how bankruptcy plays into such lawsuits, so any lawyers here want to chime in and let us know....

Update: Surprised that no one actually answered this question in the comments, but thankfully Eriq Gardner from THR, Esq. has a post explaining what happens to the lawsuit now in all probability:

If Veoh declares Chapter 7, a bankruptcy judge would issue an automatic stay in the case. UMG would likely file a motion with the bankruptcy court seeking relief from the stay to perfect its appeal. The trustee would engage legal counsel and make financial arrangements to cover the costs of defending the case before the 9th Circuit.

We're betting that all of this happens. The requiem on Veoh is now being written, but the company could continue to play a significant role in helping shape copyright liability for tech companies. (We wouldn't even be surprised to see Google acquire Veoh just so it could share in the fun of the action.)

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, lawsuits, video
Companies: universal music, veoh

Bank Sues Identity Fraud Victim After $800,000 Removed From Its Account

from the how-nice-of-them dept

Recently, we pointed out that what's often called "identity theft" involving someone falsifying bank account info to take your money is really nothing of the sort, but is instead a bank robbery where the victim gets blamed. This comedy routine makes the point quite clearly:

"They took all the money? That sounds more like a bank robbery."
"No, no. If only. 'Cause we could take the hit. No, no. It was actually your identity that was stolen, primarily. It's a massive pisser for you."
"But, it's actually money that's been taken..."
"Yes"
"From you?"
"Kind of."
"I don't know what you want from me other than my commiserations."
"You see it was your identity. They said they were you!"
"And you believed them?"
"Yes, they stole your identity."
"Well, I don't know. I seem to still have my identity, whereas you seem to have lost several thousands of pounds. In light of that, I'm not sure why you think it was my identity that was stolen instead of your money."

To make this even more ridiculous, there's now a case where a company who had $800,000 removed from its bank account is being sued by that bank, PlainsCapital, in a proactive attempt by the bank to have a court declare that it is not, in fact, liable for the lost funds. The bank had been able to recover about $600,000 of the money, but the company pointed out that the bank should repay the rest -- and the bank responded by filing a lawsuit asking a court to establish that it was not at fault and had taken "commercially reasonable" steps to remain secure. This certainly does seem like one of these insult to injury situations.

Of course, it also seems like a massively poor way to market PlainsCapital. Not only will it not protect your money for you, if your money is taken by fraud from the bank, you may end up in court. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of PlainsCapital.

Filed Under: identity fraud, lawsuits, liability, victims
Companies: plainscapital

Record Labels Demanding Cash From Pirate Bay Founders

from the good-luck dept

While The Pirate Bay case is still on appeal, the major record labels would rather not wait for due process, and are now demanding that two of the site's founders pay up, since the site is still operating. You may recall that, separate from the original ruling against The Pirate Bay, the court later granted a different injunction against Gottfried Svartholm-Warg and Fredrik Neij from even working on the site. The record labels are arguing that since the site is still operating, those two must still be running it. It's worth noting that both of those guys no longer live in Sweden -- and both insist that they have stopped operating the site (though who knows if that's true). Either way, it's somewhat entertaining to watch how desperate the labels are to make something stick on these guys.

Filed Under: lawsuits
Companies: the pirate bay

Grooveshark Sued Again... Negotiating Via Lawsuit Continues

from the and-so-it-goes dept

We've discussed in the past how the record labels have this habit of "negotiating through lawsuits," in that they will often sue an innovative music startup, even as they're negotiating licensing deals with them, just to get the upperhand in the negotiation. It's happened with countless music startups -- and it's one of the main reasons so few survive. They're overly burdened with ridiculous costs from the beginning. We already saw that EMI used this strategy with Grooveshark, in forcing it into a licensing deal, and apparently Universal Music decided it could do the same thing. It's now suing Grooveshark as well -- even though Grooveshark insists it pays all the appropriate licenses. Of course, the end result of all this is that it gives Grooveshark more publicity, but may make it more difficult for the company to survive.

Filed Under: lawsuits, negotiation
Companies: emi, grooveshark, universal music

Man Sues Neighbor For Not Turning Off WiFi And Cell Phone

from the science? dept

For years, we've heard of people freaking out about WiFi or mobile phones, claiming they have "electromagnetic sensitivity" to those things. The only problem is that in double-blind tests, there is no evidence that any sensitivity is due to electromagnetic waves. And yet, people keep insisting it must be true. In the latest extreme case, a guy in Santa Fe is suing his neighbor for not turning off his WiFi or mobile phone, saying that it caused him to become homeless:

Firstenberg "cannot stay in a hotel, because hotels and motels all employ wi-fi connections, which trigger a severe illness," says the request for a preliminary injunction. "If (Firstenberg) cannot obtain preliminary relief, he will be forced to continue to sleep in his car, enduring winter cold and discomfort, until this case can be heard."

Filed Under: electromagnetic sensitivity, lawsuits, mobile phones, wifi, wireless

UFC Plans To Sue Individuals, Despite The Cost Being More Than Any 'Loss'

from the someone-want-to-give-them-a-recap-how-that-worked-for-the-RIAA dept

There's something that just drives some executives nuts about the idea that someone might access their content "without paying" directly for it. We saw this last year when music industry execs kept saying they had to stop going to war against consumers, but immediately followed that up by saying that none of that mattered if they couldn't stomp out "piracy." It's as if the second any sort of unauthorized use occurs, the entire "cost-benefit" analysis goes out the window. If it's costing you more to try to stop unauthorized access, and it's not working, and there are ways to embrace it that makes you more money, the solution should be simple: you stop worrying and start embracing.

Apparently that message hasn't gotten through to the folks who own Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). Perhaps it's not too surprising that such a group's only reaction is to fight, but when they even admit that fighting unauthorized access will cost more than any "losses," you have to wonder how any executive at the company keeps his job. That's a recipe for getting fired: "Hey, I'm going to undertake an action that will cost us more than not taking this action -- oh, and it's likely to piss off a bunch of our biggest fans as well."

This isn't a huge shock. Last month, a UFC exec was at that Judiciary Committee hearing about unauthorized access to live streaming sporting events, and played the role of the RIAA/MPAA lobbyists claiming "them stealers are destroying our business." Given that, it's no surprise that UFC is gearing up to go after both sites like Justin.tv and the individuals themselves. Apparently, UFC's fight-first, think-later execs haven't noticed how badly similar plans have backfired. Most of the streaming websites have pretty strong DMCA safe harbor protections, and suing users hasn't worked out particularly well for the RIAA. Furthermore, pissing off your fans? Yeah, not such a hot move.

Meanwhile, the Torrentfreak article above does a really nice job breaking down just how many people willingly pay huge sums to watch UFC events on Pay-Per-View, and how that number keeps on growing. There was apparently a dip in a recent fight, but TF notes that it probably had more to do with one of the headlining fighters having to back out. What does become clear is that UFC has no problem convincing huge numbers of people to pay up huge amounts to watch its events. Pissing off a lot of fans with ridiculous lawsuits doesn't make anyone more likely to buy.

Hell, even Joe Rogan, the comedian (and notorious hater of "joke stealers") who also acts as commentator for UFC seems to think this is a bad idea, saying: "I think that kind of stifles innovation. It stifles the direction the internet is going. I like things being out there. I think people are always going to buy UFC pay-per-views. You're going to get a much better experience watching it on your television than all stretched out looking fuzzy and pixilated. They're trying to protect their money, but the internet is a strange animal."

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuits, sporting events, strategy, streaming, ufc
Companies: ufc